Perhaps this confinement situation will be a parenthesis? Or will it happen again? For the moment, no one is in a position to (pre)say. The only thing we can be sure of in these uncertain times is that confinement is having a “magnifying effect” on the online presence of cultural institutions, the only alternative for maintaining a link with their audiences. This revelation reveals which establishments have the maturity and resources to do so. Their practices are therefore particularly inspiring. However, an institution’s website and social networks are only a lever in the service of an overall mediation and communication strategy, and can in no way replace what it can offer in terms of sensitive, material and human experience. On this point, we fully agree with Nathalie Bondil, Director of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, who believes that “art is linked to emotion and experimentation, so museum visits will continue. Digital technology will be able to prepare and complement the visit, but not replace it” (cf. the April 14, 2020 article published in the Canadian newspaper La presse).
In this article, we’ll share some of the issues we’re facing in the heritage sector. We’ll also present some inspiring practices carried out by cultural venues on the web and social networks. Finally, with a view to deconfinement, we’ll talk about the need to integrate one’s online presence into an overall audience strategy. For this last point, we’ll mention the work carried out with the French Institute of Russia during a mission launched last year.
1. Old issues revealed by a new situation.
In preparation for {CORRESPONDANCES DIGITALES] in a webinar scheduled for early May for tourist and cultural venues at Val d’Oise, we set out to identify some of the issues associated with this crisis. One conviction in particular emerged: the crisis we’re experiencing is accentuating issues that pre-existed it.
The challenge of connecting with audiences: maintaining the link, opening up and building loyalty among new audiences.
The online mediations deployed during the confinement seem to be based, understandably enough, largely on content published prior to the confinement. Digital technology was the only option, and the media’s rebroadcasting of certain resources published by museums gave unprecedented visibility to this type of content. The situation was therefore beneficial in opening up the audience of those cultural venues whose initiatives received the most coverage. Unfortunately, as always, it was the most visible institutions that benefited most from this additional visibility. So it’s hard to draw a global conclusion for all the museums, even if those most active on social networks easily continued their activities. For the others, it was potentially a case of imposed silence.
The challenge of collaboration between professionals: working transversally within the company and networking with other cultural venues.
The closure of physical venues has shifted the burden of all public relations onto museum community managers. In the most visible museums on social networks, this work is sometimes managed by a dedicated team, which is the exception rather than the rule. As a general rule, this work is carried out by a community manager, or by a professional who volunteers his or her skills for a given period of time. In this situation, it may be interesting to analyze whether cross-disciplinary work with other professions has been facilitated, and whether this solidarity can be maintained once the museums return to normal operation. In addition, the question may also concern links between cultural venues: did the network logic work better during this period? Can we expect to see more sustainable pooling and synergies in the coming months?
The economic challenge: should (and can) museums’ online presence generate revenue?
From an economic point of view, confinement has stopped and will slow down attendance at cultural venues, particularly international ones, for many months to come. The looming economic crisis is likely to produce public and private cost-cutting measures, and is already having a heavy impact on the most precarious professions. In such a situation, should museums’ online presence be seen as a genuine public service, or as a means of generating revenue? Bruno Girveau, Director of the Palais des Beaux-arts de Lille, believes that “we need a greater presence on the web, without necessarily expecting an immediate return” ( Read the full interview on the Club innovation et culture website.).
Ocim has done an outstanding job of exploring these various issues, opening up a space for reflection to managers and researchers from the museum world. In response to these challenges, a number of initiatives taken by cultural venues were particularly noteworthy.
2. Some inspiring practices carried out by cultural venues on the web and social networks.
As previously mentioned, many museums and monuments have built on content already produced before the crisis. This content has found a new lease of life for audiences kept at a distance and confined to their homes. In the absence of physical links, more spontaneous initiatives have also been taken to encourage personalized and more interactive communication between cultural venues and communities. . Without repeating an exhaustive list of these achievements, which have already been widely reported in the press, here are a few brief examples of the excellent digital maturity of certain heritage establishments.
The publication of useful resources created before the confinement.
Whether for dreaming, learning, entertaining or experimenting, cultural venues have come up with a wide range of proposals. The confinement has also been conducive to the curation of content and resources produced in the past by cultural institutions. The Musée d’Orsay (with, for example, Les petits M’O, its platform dedicated to young visitors), Paris Musées and the Centre des Monuments Nationaux have regularly offered particularly rich resources (see this Cnews article on the subject). Videos, podcasts, playlists, virtual tours with suggested activities and games, educational booklets and MOOCs have all been made available to the public at these establishments.
The development of more spontaneous initiatives during confinement.
Numerous initiatives were launched in response to the situation of confinement that everyone was experiencing. While online communication was primarily used as a stopgap to present postponed or cancelled exhibitions (as was the case, for example, with thePompeii exhibition at the Grand Palais), it was also an opportunity to reaffirm the societal role played by cultural venues.
Poetic, artistic, cultural and educational escapes from confinement were offered to online audiences. This was the case, for example, with the competition organized by the Maison Européenne de la Photo in collaboration with the Maison de la Poésie and the Forum des Images.
Closely linked to current events, heritage sites, in particular scientific, technical and industrial cultural centers (CCSTI), have also provided information and opened up spaces for exchange and reflection by offering quality content. By way of illustration, the Cité de l’économie provided a range of resources for understanding the economic impact of Covid-19.
However, if this situation were to persist, it would create a lasting imbalance in the relationship between the public and cultural venues, depriving the latter of the levers and actions they need to carry out their missions. Firstly, from an economic and budgetary point of view, without a physical reopening, heritage sites will not be able to contribute to the development of their own resources, at a time when public funding in the cultural sector is in danger of shrinking ever further. Furthermore, in the face of a real digital divide, physical actions remain essential, both within and outside the walls, to work towards the cultural democratization missions of these public establishments.
3. Integrate your online presence into a global audience strategy.
With the prospect of an upcoming deconfinement, which will be more or less long-lasting depending on the density of museum attendance, it’s important to take a closer look at the complex links between online presence and physical presence with the public.
In-person audiences are different from online audiences, and therefore require dedicated approaches.
On this point, it’s an opportunity to revisit an article we wrote some time ago : Has digital technology killed off physical museum mediation?
In this article, we emphasized the difference between online and in situ audiences, pointing out the difficulty of establishing how an online visitor becomes a physical visitor. It was also an opportunity to evoke the diversity of uses to which online audiences devote themselves on the web and social networks of cultural venues.
During confinement, online presence as the only option has potentially developed new uses and new reflexes on the part of audiences (cf. the examples given above). This will require a certain amount of hindsight to gauge how these uses will endure. By way of an introduction to the “post-Covid19 ” era, it might be interesting to look back at the relationship between an online presence and the physical positioning of a cultural venue.
Integrate your online presence into a global audience strategy.
Last year, with {CORRESPONDANCES DIGITALES]we had the pleasure of working with the Institut Français de Russie in Moscow. A cultural operator of the French Embassy, the Institut Français gives efficiency and visibility to French cooperation activities in Russia: culture, training and the French language. In charge of coordinating the network of 12 Alliances Françaises throughout the Federation, the Institut Français in Moscow and Saint Petersburg wanted to define a common digital strategy for all these players.
To define this strategy, the first step was to study the positioning that the Institut Français de Russie claims in relation to its competitors, partners and audiences.
Following these initial reflections, a more detailed analysis with the management of the Alliances Françaises consisted in analysing the way in which this positioning is materialised (challenges and missions, cultural and event programming, as well as pricing policy) and verifying whether it is clearly expressed:
- With the public at the Alliances Françaises and Instituts Françaises in Russia , via a range of material (including posters and signage) and human resources.
- With competitors, partners and potential (or non-public) audiences, as part of their public and press relations, as well as their digital, print and event communications.
In order to carry out this diagnosis, the participants defined typical profiles of the public, in order to imagine and formalize all the stages they went through to come into contact with an Alliance Française or Institut Français, and eventually to take part in the activities on offer. This also provided an opportunity to review the different materials available to them, and thus to reconsider their clarity, consistency and proposed pathway.
Based on this diagnosis, a roadmap was drawn up to improve partner relations, press relations, web, print and event communications.
This example highlights the need for a holistic approach to audiences, offering a continuum of online and physical experiences, even though some of them will remain on the doorstep of museums, taking advantage of the wealth of activities offered on their websites and social networks. So it’s not necessarily necessary to create an “editorial double” between physical and online visits, but rather to maintain this rich dialogue between the digital, the human and the sensory.
The current pandemic is revealing, and even accelerating, the digital maturity of heritage establishments. This unprecedented situation calls for a certain amount of hindsight, in order to anticipate the changes that are taking place in our relationship with the public, and in the practices of professionals working in the service of heritage and the public.
